Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:11PM
from the someone-call-apple dept.

The Wireless Power Consortium (comprised of Samsung, Sanyo, Olympus, Philips, Texas Instruments, and others) has started a push towards a wireless charging standard under the moniker "Qi" (pronounced "chee"). "Members of the Wireless Power Consortium are reviewing version 0.95 of its technical specification which defines a proposed standard for charging devices, using up to 5Watts power, delivered by electromagnetic induction. The spec could evolve into a standard — and will be demonstrated by multiple vendors on September 15th to 16th. ... It is less ambitious than the system demonstrated this summer by Witricity, which operates at a distance of a few meters, using resonance, which the company claims has green benefits through replacing disposable batteries."

I can't see why we wouldn't need both - an induction system for recharging batteries, and a resonance system for wireless power. We need the latter because it make wireless power a reality, we need the former because there won't be universal coverage of the latter.

Why must we bind ourselves to a transliteration table that winds up producing words that are pronounced nothing like how they are spelled, and further bastardize the English language?

How can you bastardize the English language, when it has always been bastardized? That's the appeal of the English language.

If you hadn't noticed, English is chock-full of words that aren't pronounced how they are spelled. It's a major aspect of the language's charm and beauty. Can you imagine how boring and hideous it would be if every word was spelled phonetically?

More like Spanish or Welsh. Welsh is most fun, because it is phonetic but uses a very different mapping between letters and sounds to English, meaning that you get words that look like they are made entirely of consonants, but when pronounced are almost entirely vowels.

Well, I don't know anything about Finnish. You describe it in a utilitarian sense. That's fine, a language does have to be useful for communication. But as an English speaker, a lot of the enjoyment of the language comes from the weird and wonderful words that only make sense through some sort of archaic historical reconstruction, or "quirks mode."

I'm not saying that other languages need to have these quirks to be interesting - I'm just saying that in the context of English it is meaningful. Some of the qui

The real point of having "write as you speak, speak as you read" orthography is to be able to immediately pronounce the word as soon as you read it - whether in a dictionary, or in the book (where its meaning is usually clear from context).

Why must we bind ourselves to a transliteration table that winds up producing words that are pronounced nothing like how they are spelled, and further bastardize the English language?

It's dumb. Nothing good comes of it.

"Qi" is pronounced as it is spelled. The "Q" letter is defined to make a "CH" sound in Pinyin ("CH" is a similar but slightly different sound in Pinyin). The "I" is defined to make an "EE" sound along with its respective inflection (sometimes marked with diacritics or by numbers). As for bastardizing the English language, it has nothing to do with the English language. It's a romanization of Chinese -- that is, a system for writing spoken Chinese with the Latin alphabet (not the English pronunciation of it)

What is the real thing? How can it be measured and tested? Couldn't it be used for evil, as well as good?

Cue the conceited, ill-informed rationalizations.

Oh, I'm not saying that this particular "Qi" is a good thing. I'm saying that there's no proof that "real" Qi exists, nor that it would be beneficial.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that this "EM pollution" is harmful, but at least we sort of know what it is, and can measure its effect, so I trust it a hell of a lot more than I'd trust "real" Qi, if you managed to produce any.

What is the real thing? How can it be measured and tested? Couldn't it be used for evil, as well as good?

I just call it 'energy' but nobody I know seems entirely clear on what exactly it is. My guess is that it is simply another variation of the unstable wave forms from which atomic matter is constructed, but that doesn't really help much since the same could be said of anything. It's hard to test for in the kind of way which would establish things once and for all because our technology and scientific un

This was my first concern. If a device is not being charged, isn't there still some power being used?I've wondered this about transformer wall-warts too, which is also an inductive coupling (without as much gap between the coils though). Despite all the coiling of the wire, there's still a closed circuit when you plug it into the wall and the primary coil will have some non-zero resistance, and I doubt a wall wart is anywhere close to 100% efficiency.

Well, you could design the charging system as a plate where you place your equipment, and have a simple weight-activated contact underneath the plate. That way you'd save on some of that standby-power they are all so worried about. And maybe this new system would actually end up having a lower TCO than normal wall-warts during normal use.

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat. Does it really take that much effort to grab the cable and plug it in? Also, in the case of cell phones, you wouldn't be able to use the cell phone while it's charging like most cell phones allow you to do currently. Win = Power cord.

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat.

And in ten years, when someone points out that you can save $100 per year on electricity by using an all new cabled cell phone charger, suddenly the average user will love cables all over again. The average user doesn't know what he/she wants or needs and never will. Therefore, you should design products to cater to power users in terms of capabilities and complete idiots in terms of ease of use, and ignore the protestations of the proles. Anything else will inevitably lead to products designed by commit

And the average user won't know what they want because they don't have the information. You can't browse phone chargers at the store and compare the on-box listings of "dollars per month". So the user is going to compare based on convenience and price.

My point was that somebody will get the bright idea to start advertising wired chargers a few years later as the "green, money-saving alternative to wireless chargers", at which point customers would have at least some of the information....

Wireless power for most consumer devices is without a doubt the most idiotic concept I've heard suggested in the consumer space lately. The EM spectrum is already an awful mess. We shouldn't be raising the noise floor and wrecking our environment by increasing the cons

If you're worried about the environment, consider that the wall wart is generally almost the same size as the phone itself these days, so by using wireless charging, you're halving the amount of material that needs to be manufactured. That, and we're talking 5 Watts. Even if it's only 50% efficient, that's only 5 Watts of wasted electricity. There are plenty of devices in your home that waste a lot more than that.

Hmm, this is true. Although (now I'm just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it:P ) if you live in a cold climate such that some heating is needed for most of the year, that extra energy (which will dissipate as heat) won't be wasted, it'll just be a little auxiliary warmth.:)

Sure, but here in Indiana we only pay $0.09/kWh or $4/year/device or just over a penny a day, a penny a day for the convenience of being able to toss the phone on a pad instead of plugging it in. Given my failure rate at actually getting the phone plugged into that darn cable, I'd gladly pay a penny a day for a more reliable convenient method.

Maybe I just don't understand their plan, but this seems like it would be close to a useless technology. It seems like it would be more expensive to develop and implement than a standard power cable, and you would have to set your device onto the power mat.

The average user does not like cables.

You are just not the average user.

The average user does not like cables.

You are just not the average user.

Not to mention that, the parent mentions a "standard power cable". Please tell me what power cable is standard for portable devices. For desktops, yes, I have a drawer full of them, but for portables, you get everything from custom sync connectors that charge to USB, mini-USB and more.

The OP says that it would be more costly to develop than a standard power cable, as in: Why aren't they developing a standard power cable rather than trying to standardize useless technology like this.

Well, assuming that the standard is complete with no areas left as implementation decisions, and that they all use the same resonance frequency, and all the participants conform fully to the proposal, and that no-one decides to add some sort of proprietary encrypted handshaking protocol on the charging cycle (purely in the interests of security, of course).

Otherwise, you could well end up with ten plates to charge ten devices, which would be a bit of a step back.

That's only an epic win if you have ten things. Plus, wouldn't all ten things be drawing from the same rather small power supply? That sounds like it's going to be pretty slow. Maybe I don't understand how it works, could be.:)

Only poorly designed connectors have this problem. Take a look at Apple's MagSafe connector or the connector that Sony Ericsson uses for examples of how to build connectors that should never wear out in this way, abuse notwithstanding.

I'm fairly certain that the connector on my iphone will crap out way before the phone itself does, I wish there was a magsafe power port either as a usable subset of the connector or a seperate charging port.

As often as an iPhone needs to be charged, I don't see the edged connector lasting very long.

Just to clarify, in both examples, I was referring to the device, not the power cord. Thin DC power cords break. That's why I'm of the opinion that the government should mandate that all power cords on all devices have a connector on both ends and be available as a replacement part without buying an entire power supply.:-) IMHO, the key to good power connector design is to ensure that if something is going to break, it's the cheap power cord and not the expensive device plugged into that power cord.

+1 to worn connectors. My old phone (an Ericsson K700i) retired not due to any inherent problem with the phone itself (it'd survived being soaked with water multiple times at Songkran in Thailand, and being thrown (along with myself, but I'm waterproof) in a dam) but because the retarded little push-contact charging plug no longer connected.

I swore never to buy another phone with the same system, then I saw the W880i (damn you, Sony, for making such a slim sexy phone!) and now two years later I'm having t

This is potentially a good thing. How many different charging devices do you have at the moment? I've got one for AAA and AA batteries, one for my phone, one for my iPod, one for my wife's phone, one for my DSLR, one for my camcorder, one for my...

I don't need long-range wireless power, like some developments are working on -- whilst this would be quite cool, it's very inefficient at this stage. Wireless charging of all these devices would however be a great benefit to reduce clutter and waste. If all the devices are compatible with the one spec of charger, then should I lose my phone charger, it doesn't matter as it's compatible with the charger I've got. I've had to replace one of the phone chargers not that long ago too as SonyEricsson have quite a delicate clip on the plug -- if this clip breaks, then the plug won't stay attached and the device doesn't charge.

I already enjoy the benefits of wireless charging with my electric toothbrush - it sits in a base that charges it back up. There are no electrical contacts or plugs to get wet and gunky with toothpaste residue, it's just a smooth plastic ring that the toothbrush sits in and away it goes.

To have a pad that I could place any of my devices on to recharge would be incredibly convenient. I truly hope that enough manufactures adopt this standard to make it a possibility. Unfortunately with standards, the great thing about them is that there are so many to chose from.

This is potentially a good thing. How many different charging devices do you have at the moment? I've got one for AAA and AA batteries, one for my phone, one for my iPod, one for my wife's phone, one for my DSLR, one for my camcorder, one for my...

While 5 watts isn't much, I just can't see that many people being willing to become a Qigong master just so they can run an AP from their own natural energy. It takes decades of study to reach that level.

Most people these days are far too busy multitasking to even think about the focused mental effort required.

So did I - and I'm not the original poster btw. Initially having never heard it pronounced out loud before I was thinking that it could be "Why" or "Wee" - both are common pronunciations of double i - the fact that it's ambiguous is the issue here, not that it's difficult to pronounce.

The fist time I heard a Nintendo ad on the TV, one of the two possible legitimate pronunciations for the word was confirmed. Without knowing which way Nintendo was going with it (since they picked the name) it wouldn't be poss

The vowel sound in 'Wii' is usually written as 'ee' and sometimes 'ea' or just 'e', examples would include 'we', 'wee', 'weed', 'read' and so on.

As jo_ham posted, 'ii' in English is usually associated with an 'eye' pronounciation, which would have made the Wii, sound like it was called the 'why'.

I found Nintendo's attempt to force the 'ee' sound out of 'ii' baffling when I first heard it, but after a couple of minutes it made sense - when Romanising Japanese, double vowels mean a long pronounciation. So fo

Wait until people start mis-prounouncing it "Kwee" and it becomes the standard spoken form. Sort of like Linux "Linucks" / "Lye-nucks" debate or the Hyundai "Hayundai"/"Hyoondai"/"Hunday" one..
Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ? I could understand it if the company in question was Malaysian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_language#Writing_system) and they spelled the word "Chee" as "Qi" in their language.

I'll give you the logo part, it is difficult to make a logo around Chee.
But the "Sexy" part is debatable. I bet that a word that sounds like Kwee "sounds" cheap to Asian ears, while a word that sounds like Chee sounds sophisticated.I'll even bet that Chinese has a nice pictogram for Chee, while Kwee probably has none.
It is only to English speakers ear that Chee sounds cheap (mostly due to the similarity of the sounds), while Kwee sounds like greek Ki or royal (similar to Queen? ).

But it doesn't sound like "Kwee" it sounds like "Chee" - so it has the best of both worlds.

It is only to English speakers ear that Chee sounds cheap

I never said that "Chee" sounds cheap. I said it looks cheap. It sounds perfectly fine to my ears, and most English speakers would know the word, with a significant minority actually participating in practices that use the concept.

Well, Chi/Qi is not exclusive to Tai Chi. Yoga, meditation, etc. also use it in different forms. As for it being a rip-off of the "real thing", that's almost meaningless in this field, where every devotee of a different style believes that their way is the "true way" and that their teacher is the best.

Anyway, why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?

Because Qi is the Pinyin transliteration, and Pinyin is pretty much as close as you can get to standard. Chinese and Japanese don't use the Latin script but there most certainly do exist standards to transcribe them consistently.

It gets a little hairy with Chinese, but that's how you write it and is sexier than both "Chee" and "Chi" (the now-outmoded Wade-Giles way of transliterating it).

why spell it "Qi" when the Chinese/Japanese language does not use the Latin script ?

Wrong - they most certainly do, in their own way. Type 'qi' with your keyboard language setting set to chinese and you will get a choice of characters all pronounced 'chee'. Otherwise chinese keyboards would have to be the size of a large room. It's also how chinese people type text messages on a cell phone's keypad. All modern educated chinese people use latin characters as easily as people who use it for their

Your cell phone pumps out about 4W on a regular basis, and you keep it in your pocket next to your junk.

No, cell phones are NOT continuously pumping out 4 watts.

You are FAR off the mark with the claim of 4W.It is more like 0.250 watts and below for your average cell phone. In fact, there are STRINGENT FCC restrictions on how much power you can put out within 20cm of your skin. Even laptops are restricted to the sub half-watt power range for their wireless and broadband cards. Usually 100mw in your Novatel broadband card.

Comparing the peak power of GSM to average power of this system is misleading at best (gsm transmits only 1/8 of the time due to TDM) and a lie at worst (GSM power control almost always pushes the level 10-20dB below that).

Actually, when this becomes real a tinfoil hat may be the very last thing you'd want to wear. I'm assuming this is sort of like what happens if you go near really high capacity power lines with a flouescent bulb, where the power in the air is enough to cause the bulb to light. It's also enough that having lived near one long enough I can attest that metal isn't fun to wear near one.

I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.

I'd say you would think that because you've likely never lived in a place without an overabundance of inexpensively made goods and amazingly high living standards. Seriously, just shop around, and you can find quality if that's what you're looking for, or you can find cheap and disposable, and just about everything in-between. We have an incredible wealth of options in the market (except for the occasional government sponsored monopoly, like cable).

``I see the EU being first in a lot of consumer areas. Their own version of Windows, devices that are released in Europe before the US and now a standard mobile phone adapter. I'd be curious to know why in the land where consumers are king, products are often bloated, stripped down and late.''

Hmm, I don't think the EU is first for all of those. Standard mobile phone adapter, didn't China have that first? New devices are usually released in Japan, Taiwain, or Hong Kong before they come to the EU.

Sorry to confuse things even more, but you are incorrect. Taichi is an old romanization. Using modern pinyin it's actually Taiji. The ji means "utmost" or "extreme". People only pronounce it "tie-chee" (in Mandarin) because they are mis-reading the old romanization, but it's actually pronounced "tie-jee", and while Qi (pronounced chee) is something that is definitely studied in the practice of Taiji, it is not the same as the "chi" in "Taichi". I've studied Taiji for 4 1/2 years in Beijing, so not just

I'd learn some Chinese or Japanese before fetishising Eastern philosophy and concepts, if I were you.

FWIW, the Japanese equivalent ki means "spirit/essence" in the loosest sense, and is used to form all sorts of compound nouns - "genki" meaning healthy, well, of good spirit, "tenki" meaning weather (heaven-spirit), "samuki" meaning a cold (cold-spirit) and... "denki" meaning electricity.

In my opinion, the languages of SE Asia are mostly beautiful, elegant and expressive, but they're still languages, and t

And of every transformer and of every AC induction motor and of every electric toothbrush's induction charger and of the many death rays Tesla spent his later years working on. And, let's face it, that's why geeks love Tesla. There's something unbelievably cool about someone who:

Works out the principles used for a large subset of modern technology.

Completely fails to market it and goes bankrupt several times (on one occasion because he accidentally destroyed the local power substation with one of his e